Re: Good bye

[Kelly Miller <lightsolphoenix@xxxxxxxxx>]

Les Mikesell wrote:
> Kelly Miller wrote:
> > > > Fedora (I believe) are promoting what in the long term is the right 
> > > > way to go (IMHO). Time will tell if it is truly the correct 
> > > > approach(/treatment).
> > >
> > > It's been more than a decade now (if you count fedora as an 
> > > extension of the earlier RH model) and it just continues to help the 
> > > monopoly make more money.  Doesn't someone define insanity as 
> > > expecting different results from continuing to do the same thing?
> > Ahem, last time I checked, the goal of GNU/Linux was not to break the 
> > monopoly, but to create the best free software-based system that can 
> > be made.  So uh, how does including non-free components help with 
> > that goal?
>
> Most of the contributions to open source software have come from 
> people who use it in one way or another, or from commercial companies 
> who have decided for their own reasons to add open licenses to the 
> code they own.  Anything that increases the user base will almost 
> certainly increase the contributor base.  And making it easy to obtain 
> all needed software would help increase the user base.
See, this is the problem with the whole free vs. open source thing.  By 
suggesting that open source works better, while ignoring the whole idea 
of being FREE behind it, you bring in users who wonder why distros 
simply don't include -- insert name of closed-source component du-jour 
here -- and then you get distros that include that particular component 
in the name of "making things easy for users".  However, the REAL 
backlash from that decision is what most FLOSS programmers are seeing 
from Nvidia and Adobe now; "We don't need to produce open source 
software, you can use the closed source stuff instead.  After all, isn't 
closed source better than nothing?"

No, it's not. 
> > I have to agree with RMS' statements on that respect; it isn't worth 
> > having GNU/Linux replace Windows if it turns into a closed system 
> > equivalent to Windows itself.  What kind of "victory" is that?
>
> First of all, if any virus-spewing Microsoft box can be converted to 
> run stable, well-tested, standards-conforming software instead, it is 
> a victory for everyone on the internet.  But open source can never 
> 'turn into' a closed system.  The only scenario that might even come 
> close to that would be if some system were so much better that 
> everyone would choose it instead - which would also be a victory for 
> everyone having that choice.
Until you realize that such a system is actually no better than Windows 
itself.  You're still locked in, you still can't see what's really going 
on, and since it's closed, there will likely be hidden hooks designed to 
make it hard to use anything else.  This is the sort of thing that 
occurs when you use non-free software.
> > And uh, for all your posts about the stability of the system, I have 
> > to wonder why you're not running Debian stable.  AFAIK, that is the 
> > only distro line that is guaranteed to work without any bugs of any 
> > kind, mainly because it's years behind the others...
>
> There are 2 kinds of stability - one is unchanging and can be good for 
> interfaces.  The other is reliability.   Fedora has neither.
You know, I do find it interesting that for a supposedly unreliable 
distro, I haven't changed my install procedure on Fedora in 4 versions.  
Are you sure it's not just because you're hitting stuff that most people 
don't run into that's causing this supposed unreliability?
> > Asking why 3rd party stuff doesn't work when they're considered 
> > outside the system is a little odd, wouldn't you say?
>
> No, I wouldn't say that.  As with any other operating systems, I 
> expect to be able to run other programs on it.
So do I.  I note that I have no problems running 3rd party programs on 
Fedora.  I generally just choose not to.  However, things like VMWare work.
> > It isn't Fedora's fault that VMWare's sytem doesn't work with it; ask 
> > VMWare why, since the stuff is set up by them.
>
> When the same program works on one version of an operating system but 
> not on another, there's nothing to ask.  The operating system has 
> clearly failed to provide a usable interface.
Did you mention things like this about Windows?  Every version suffers 
from this problem.  Just ask the people trying to switch to Vista.